One of the main landing gear on a DC-9 collapsed while taxiing for takeoff (still on the taxiway) yesterday at MSP. Does anybody know anything about what might have happened?
DC-9 Gear Collapse
- Thread starter ExAF
- Start date
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/23/2002 11:29:36 AM ExAF wrote:
One of the main landing gear on a DC-9 collapsed while taxiing for takeoff (still on the taxiway) yesterday at MSP. Does anybody know anything about what might have happened?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Really old but well maintained A/C?
----------------
On 9/23/2002 11:29:36 AM ExAF wrote:
One of the main landing gear on a DC-9 collapsed while taxiing for takeoff (still on the taxiway) yesterday at MSP. Does anybody know anything about what might have happened?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Really old but well maintained A/C?
Busdrvr:
Nice cheap shot.
Why don't you act like the professional you claim to be and wait for the facts to be revealed before sharing your opinion with the rest of us.
I can still remember very well the picture of a UAL 747-400 setting on the runway at LAX with a collapsed nose gear and all the chutes deployed from several years ago. I'm sure you forgot about that one!
Nice cheap shot.
Why don't you act like the professional you claim to be and wait for the facts to be revealed before sharing your opinion with the rest of us.
I can still remember very well the picture of a UAL 747-400 setting on the runway at LAX with a collapsed nose gear and all the chutes deployed from several years ago. I'm sure you forgot about that one!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/23/2002 11:49:42 AM Speedbird wrote:
Busdrvr:
Nice cheap shot.
Why don't you act like the professional you claim to be and wait for the facts to be revealed before sharing your opinion with the rest of us.
I can still remember very well the picture of a UAL 747-400 setting on the runway at LAX with a collapsed nose gear and all the chutes deployed from several years ago. I'm sure you forgot about that one!
----------------
[/blockquote]
How is it cheap to point out the obvious? The NWAC guys repeat the mantra over and over again, they may be old, but they are sooo well maintained that they are better than a new jet. Never mind metal fatigue. When something happens, that luckily didn't hurt anybody, are they somehow exempt from any second guessing? They are the ones touting the 20+ year old average fleet age and how much savings it provides over UALs 8 year old fleet. It works both ways, they are either just as safe or not, and pointing out that it apears they are not is NOT a cheap shot. I guess if we all waited for all the facts to come out, this board would consist of little more than copies of news releases.
----------------
On 9/23/2002 11:49:42 AM Speedbird wrote:
Busdrvr:
Nice cheap shot.
Why don't you act like the professional you claim to be and wait for the facts to be revealed before sharing your opinion with the rest of us.
I can still remember very well the picture of a UAL 747-400 setting on the runway at LAX with a collapsed nose gear and all the chutes deployed from several years ago. I'm sure you forgot about that one!
----------------
[/blockquote]
How is it cheap to point out the obvious? The NWAC guys repeat the mantra over and over again, they may be old, but they are sooo well maintained that they are better than a new jet. Never mind metal fatigue. When something happens, that luckily didn't hurt anybody, are they somehow exempt from any second guessing? They are the ones touting the 20+ year old average fleet age and how much savings it provides over UALs 8 year old fleet. It works both ways, they are either just as safe or not, and pointing out that it apears they are not is NOT a cheap shot. I guess if we all waited for all the facts to come out, this board would consist of little more than copies of news releases.
ITRADE
Veteran
You gotta admit - many of NW's DC-9s are quite old. Nixon was president when a lot of them were delivered.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/23/2002 1:38:50 PM ITRADE wrote:
You gotta admit - many of NW's DC-9s are quite old. Nixon was president when a lot of them were delivered.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Actually, a majority of the -30s/-40s (and, of course, all nine of the 'stubs') date from LBJ's tenure, not Tricky Dick's (pre-1969)!
(You kids'll have to look him up in the history books...)
----------------
On 9/23/2002 1:38:50 PM ITRADE wrote:
You gotta admit - many of NW's DC-9s are quite old. Nixon was president when a lot of them were delivered.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Actually, a majority of the -30s/-40s (and, of course, all nine of the 'stubs') date from LBJ's tenure, not Tricky Dick's (pre-1969)!
(You kids'll have to look him up in the history books...)
They are really, really old. I think it is absolutly hysterical that they are so old(And making sooooo much money). However, anyone who gets on this board and comments that the age of the aircraft has anything to do with wheels collapsing is clearly NOT a pilot, or not a very GOOD one. Folks who are writing rubber checks to pay for their 8 year old fleet are truly whats out of date. How can anyone comment on any fleet, when they are operating a financial disaster and bragging about how new their fleet is...with a straight face.
![2.gif']](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2FThat+is+the+real+joke%21%21%21+%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F9.gif%27%5D+Those+DC-9%27s+are+really+old%2C+but+maintained+good.+And+they+have+more+money+in+the+bank+than+and+8+year+old+fleet%2Cor+a+company+that+is+BK.+%5Bimg++Try+it%2C+you+might+be+able+to+pay+your+bills+too.%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F2.gif%27%5D&hash=8657c5e0927196e1faa9e64cfc893829)
NW is still flying Alleghenys first 'leased' DC9 dash 10 from Bonzana Airlines
What 1968?....time to 'trade up'.....
What 1968?....time to 'trade up'.....
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/23/2002 8:46:44 PM wheels wrote:
NW is still flying Alleghenys first 'leased' DC9 dash 10 from Bonzana Airlines
What 1968?....time to 'trade up'.....
----------------
[/blockquote]
Speaking of NW's DC9's, what are NW plans for replacing these aircraft? B717? A319/A319? Mix of A318/A319 and RJ's?
I'm just asking, I have no fears or problems flying in the DC9s, even if they are older than I am
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
----------------
On 9/23/2002 8:46:44 PM wheels wrote:
NW is still flying Alleghenys first 'leased' DC9 dash 10 from Bonzana Airlines
What 1968?....time to 'trade up'.....
----------------
[/blockquote]
Speaking of NW's DC9's, what are NW plans for replacing these aircraft? B717? A319/A319? Mix of A318/A319 and RJ's?
I'm just asking, I have no fears or problems flying in the DC9s, even if they are older than I am
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
They have already started replacing them with A319's. As for the one big order...don't know. Aircraft Owned Leased Orders Options
- -
A320- 40 35 18
A319- 32 12 44 29
DC9-50 35 - - -
DC9-40 12 - -
DC9-30 100 13 113 - -
DC9-10 9 - - -
- -
A320- 40 35 18
A319- 32 12 44 29
DC9-50 35 - - -
DC9-40 12 - -
DC9-30 100 13 113 - -
DC9-10 9 - - -
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/23/2002 8:46:44 PM wheels wrote:
NW is still flying Alleghenys first 'leased' DC9 dash 10 from Bonzana Airlines
What, 1968?....time to 'trade up'.....
----------------
[/blockquote]
N948L, July 1966 vintage, actually--line #42. But it is now out of the fleet, having been recently retired.
There is one other older 'stub' still in NW service: N930RC, another original Bonanza delivery (Jan '66), line #16!
----------------
On 9/23/2002 8:46:44 PM wheels wrote:
NW is still flying Alleghenys first 'leased' DC9 dash 10 from Bonzana Airlines
What, 1968?....time to 'trade up'.....
----------------
[/blockquote]
N948L, July 1966 vintage, actually--line #42. But it is now out of the fleet, having been recently retired.
There is one other older 'stub' still in NW service: N930RC, another original Bonanza delivery (Jan '66), line #16!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/23/2002 9:42:04 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:
However, anyone who gets on this board and comments that the age of the aircraft has anything to do with wheels collapsing is clearly NOT a pilot, or not a very GOOD one.
Folks who have no idea what METAL FATIGUE is, clearly doesn't understand enginering, and I'd be careful about believing thier acertions about anything safety related.
Folks who are writing rubber checks to pay for their "8 year old" fleet are truly whats out of date. How can anyone comment on any fleet, when they are operating a financial disaster and bragging about how new their fleet is...with a straight face.
When was it UAL bounced a check? How much does you company owe the pension fund? Who had to go beg for money from the state of MN? Who had the lawyers on the steps of the courthouse ready to file BK had it not been for the loan and concessions? Glass houses Slick, read about them.
----------------
[/blockquote]
----------------
On 9/23/2002 9:42:04 PM Blueskies/400 UpperDeck wrote:
However, anyone who gets on this board and comments that the age of the aircraft has anything to do with wheels collapsing is clearly NOT a pilot, or not a very GOOD one.
Folks who have no idea what METAL FATIGUE is, clearly doesn't understand enginering, and I'd be careful about believing thier acertions about anything safety related.
Folks who are writing rubber checks to pay for their "8 year old" fleet are truly whats out of date. How can anyone comment on any fleet, when they are operating a financial disaster and bragging about how new their fleet is...with a straight face.
When was it UAL bounced a check? How much does you company owe the pension fund? Who had to go beg for money from the state of MN? Who had the lawyers on the steps of the courthouse ready to file BK had it not been for the loan and concessions? Glass houses Slick, read about them.
----------------
[/blockquote]
As an NWA technician I enjoy watching these discussions on the supposed antiquity of some of the NWA fleet. I work on old aircraft (the DC-9s) and new aircraft (A319/A320 and 757s) and am able to compare them on a daily basis. The process is quite illuminating.
One of the things I find most interesting about these discussions is that no one ever addresses the question of whether the part that failed was original equipment or not. I guess that might interfere with whichever agenda you're trying to advance. I get the feeling that most would be quite surprised at just how new some of these old aircraft are, and how old some of the parts on the new aircraft are.
Just for the record: The landing gear in question was not original equipment, nor was the gear attach fitting it's bolted to, nor, most likely, was the structure that the fitting is attached to. All were quite probably fabricated and installed AFTER some of the newer aircraft they're being compared with.
Face it folks, these things we fill with people and throw into the air multiple times a day are machines - and machines break, with total disregard for age.
I'm just glad no one was seriously injured. As with most aviation accidents/incidents we will learn from this and apply that knowledge to making sure it doesn't happen again.
One of the things I find most interesting about these discussions is that no one ever addresses the question of whether the part that failed was original equipment or not. I guess that might interfere with whichever agenda you're trying to advance. I get the feeling that most would be quite surprised at just how new some of these old aircraft are, and how old some of the parts on the new aircraft are.
Just for the record: The landing gear in question was not original equipment, nor was the gear attach fitting it's bolted to, nor, most likely, was the structure that the fitting is attached to. All were quite probably fabricated and installed AFTER some of the newer aircraft they're being compared with.
Face it folks, these things we fill with people and throw into the air multiple times a day are machines - and machines break, with total disregard for age.
I'm just glad no one was seriously injured. As with most aviation accidents/incidents we will learn from this and apply that knowledge to making sure it doesn't happen again.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/24/2002 2
21 PM NWA/AMT wrote:
One of the things I find most interesting about these discussions is that no one ever addresses the question of whether the part that failed was original equipment or not. I guess that might interfere with whichever agenda you're trying to advance. I get the feeling that most would be quite surprised at just how new some of these old aircraft are, and how old some of the parts on the new aircraft are.
Just for the record: The landing gear in question was not original equipment, nor was the gear attach fitting it's bolted to, nor, most likely, was the structure that the fitting is attached to. All were quite probably fabricated and installed AFTER some of the newer aircraft they're being compared with.
----------------
[/blockquote]
How many of these parts are manufactured, and how many are rebuilt? I'd assume that most of the unique parts on a DC-9, DC-10, 727, F-100 and even MD-80, are no longer manufactured. When UAL parked the 727s and 737-200s I think P&W bought the extra engines to be parted out Unfortuantely, there is BIG money to be made if you can sell a bad (ovetemped, overstressed) part as a rebuilt part. Some manufacturing defects get missed on NEW parts, so I'm sure it's not entirely impossible for a cracked part to go unnoticed in the resale market. Not a reflection on the AMTs, but on what they have to work with.
----------------
On 9/24/2002 2
21 PM NWA/AMT wrote: One of the things I find most interesting about these discussions is that no one ever addresses the question of whether the part that failed was original equipment or not. I guess that might interfere with whichever agenda you're trying to advance. I get the feeling that most would be quite surprised at just how new some of these old aircraft are, and how old some of the parts on the new aircraft are.
Just for the record: The landing gear in question was not original equipment, nor was the gear attach fitting it's bolted to, nor, most likely, was the structure that the fitting is attached to. All were quite probably fabricated and installed AFTER some of the newer aircraft they're being compared with.
----------------
[/blockquote]
How many of these parts are manufactured, and how many are rebuilt? I'd assume that most of the unique parts on a DC-9, DC-10, 727, F-100 and even MD-80, are no longer manufactured. When UAL parked the 727s and 737-200s I think P&W bought the extra engines to be parted out Unfortuantely, there is BIG money to be made if you can sell a bad (ovetemped, overstressed) part as a rebuilt part. Some manufacturing defects get missed on NEW parts, so I'm sure it's not entirely impossible for a cracked part to go unnoticed in the resale market. Not a reflection on the AMTs, but on what they have to work with.
